"Davide G. M. Salvetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [This should be probably have been an off-list reply, but I feel the > need to clarify the issue to all readers. Sorry for the noise.] >>>>>> fant == Frank Küster [2006-10-2] > > fant> As for the first issue, one particularly problematic point is the > fant> overly broad anti-DRM clause. FSF representatives have said that > fant> they would not try to sue anybody for, for example, including a > fant> filesystem with a GFDL'ed manual on it in a backup that gets > fant> protected by a password. > > In this specific example, it is my understanding that if you do not > further distribute your filesystem, there is nothing that a _license_ > can do to prevent you from including a GFDL'ed manual on a (private) > password protected backup.
That was my understanding, too. However the GFDL tries to do exactly that: In the anti-DRM clause, it does not talk about distribution, but about copying. > OTH, I do not really understand how would it be useful to distribute > such a think without the means to decrypt the manual. One means to decrypt the manual would be the DRM-enabled hardware. Since this only allows viewing, it is not sufficient, and we'd like to have a non-DRM-protected copy, too. However, the GFDL doesn't allow that, it just forbids using it on such a type of hardware. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive) _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
